Conceptualizing SelfEsteem Dynamics

1
Conceptualizing Self-Esteem Dynamics

• Self-Esteem Level (Trait/Global Self-Esteem)
• General/Typical feelings of self-worth or liking
• Average Tone of self-feeling across specific
  domains
• High or Low
• Does High Self-Esteem Healthy Self-Esteem?

2
A Closer Look At SE Level

• Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (10-Items)
• Negatively skewed
• Average SE score is 40 with a range of
  possible scores from 10-50.
• High SE 40-50 Extremely favorable SE.
• Low SE 30-39 Neutral or moderately
• favorable feelings of self-worth.

3
Rosenbergs (1965) Self-esteem Scale

• Assesses peoples general or typical feelings of
  self worth, liking, acceptance and competence
• how you generally or typically feel about
  yourself
• People are often grouped as being
• High or Low in Self-Esteem

4
Rosenbergs (1965) Self-Esteem Scale Sample Items

• I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on
  an equal plane with others
• I take a positive attitude toward myself
• I wish that I could have more respect for
  myself (reverse scored)

5
Research Findings on SE Level

• High SE and Low SE
• Benefits Associated with High SE Level
• Life Satisfaction, Happiness
• Self-Confidence
• More persistance in the face of failure
• Perceive Favorable Attributes (Intelligence,
  Physical Attractiveness, and Social Skills)

6
How High Can High SE Take You?
7
Is There A Darkside to High SE?
8
Contrasting Research Findings on SE Level

• Does High SE ???
• Suboptimal Functioning Linked with High SE Level
• Narcissism
• Self-Serving Bias (Success Me, Failure
  Situation)
• Objective measures (e.g., IQ) DO NOT tend to
  correlate with reported SE level
• Aggression, Hostility

9
Resolving the Contrasting Views of Self-Esteem
Level

• Healthy SE ? High SE Level
• SE is multifaceted, thus additional SE components
  (beyond its level) must be considered.
• One perspective emphasizes distinguishing SE
  among fragile or secure forms (e.g., Kernis
  Goldman, 1999, 2003).
• Traditional measures of SE Level do not
  adequately distinguish among fragile or secure
  types of SE.
• A richer understanding of SE dynamics requires
  examining how ones SE level is paired with
  fragile or secure components of SE.

10
Additional SE Components

• Stability of Self-Esteem
• The magnitude of fluctuations or changes in
  feelings of self-worth in response to particular
  events, situations, or contexts.
• Self-Esteem Contingency
• The extent that feelings of self-worth depend on
  what one achieves, accomplishes, or what outcomes
  one experiences.
• Self-Esteem Congruence
• The extent that peoples conscious (explicit) and
  non-conscious (implicit) feelings of self-worth
  are relatively similar or dissimilar to one
  another.

11
Contingent Self-Worth A Closer Look

• Refers to the degree that self-worth is based on
  matching standards or expectations regarding
  social approval, appearance, performance, or
  other criteria (Kernis, 2003 Deci Ryan, 1995
  Crocker Wolf, 2001).
• Contingent approval promotes greater sensitivity
  to and awareness of pressures to perform
  (Neighbors, Larimer, Geisner, Knee, 2004).
• Develops in response to chronic exposure to
  conditional evaluative feedback from controlling
  figures, expressed as ifthencontingencies
  (Baldwin Sinclair, 1996).
• Conditional regard thus results in people
  regulating their actions based on introjected
  motivations (Assor, Roth, Deci, 2004).

12
If I have hair then I am worthy orIf I have a
hot wife then I must be good
god
13
Additional SE ComponentsFragile SE vs.
Secure SE

• Stable SE minimal short-term fluctuations
• True SE arises naturally from having satisfied
  basic psychological needs, rather than from
  matching standards
• Congruent SE consistency between implicit and
  explicit SE

• Unstable SE substantial short-term fluctuations
• Contingent SE dependent upon achieving specific
  outcomes, matching standards
• Incongruent SE Discrepancies between implicit
  and explicit SE

14
Resolving Conflicting High SE Findings
Different Forms of High SE Exist!!!
(Reviewed in Kernis Goldman, 2002 Kernis, 2003)

• Secure High SE
• Report liking and being satisfied with oneself
• Accept ones weaknesses
• Built upon strong or solid foundation of self
• Low Ego-Involvement
• Do NOT require continual validation or promotion
• Do Not rely on SE maintenance strategies to
  attain positive SE

• Fragile High SE
• Report liking and being
• satisfied with oneself
• Resist acknowledging ones weaknesses
• Built upon weak or unstable foundation of self
• High Ego-Involvement
• Prime objective is continual SE validation or
  promotion
• Rely on SE maintenance and SE promotion
  strategies in order to attain positive SE

15
Studies Examining the Interaction Between SE
Level Components of Fragile/Secure SE

• Romantic Relationships (Kernis, Goldman,
  Paradise, 2000)
• SE Level X SE Stability
• Verbal Defensiveness (Lakey, Kernis, Heppner,
  Goldman, 05)
• SE Level X SE Stability
• SE Level X Contingent SE
• SE Level X Congruent SE

16
ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
17
Relationship Study Measures Overview

• SE Variables-
• SE Level Rosenberg SE Measure (RSE 1965),
  General SE
• SE Stability Multiple Assessments of modified
  RSE, Current SE
• Relationship Variables-
• Reactions to potentially negative hypothetical
  relationship events (RRI)
• General Relationship Quality (Dyadic Adjustment
  Scale Spanier,1976)

SE Stability
Unstable
Stable
HIGH
SE Level
LOW
18
Relationship Reaction Inventory (RRI Kernis,
Goldman, Paradise)

• Participants read a series of potentially
  negative relationship events, and for each event,
  rated their anticipated reactions in terms of 4
  different reaction styles.
• How likely is it that you would respond by
• Constructive Reactions
• Minimize taking the event at face value,
  minimizing the potentially negative implications
  of the events relevance
• Benign Explanation providing a positive
  external rationale for the event
• Destructive Reactions
• Personalizing Exaggerating or magnifying the
  self-implications of the events relevance
• Reciprocating To get even

19
SAMPLE EVENT 1Your Partner Leaves a Note
Around From a Person Named Pat and You Dont Know
Anyone Named Pat

• Personalize Reaction
• Think that your partner
• is untrustworthy and
• might be betraying you

• Minimize Reaction
• Think that the note is
• nothing to be concerned
• with

• Reciprocate Reaction
• Plan to leave a similar
• note for your partner
• to find in the next
• several days

• Benign Explanation Reaction Think that its
  okay for your partner to know people whom you
  dont

20
SAMPLE EVENT 2Your Partner Does Not Look Up
From What He or She is Doing When You First Enter
the Room and Begin Talking. You Ask Several
Questions and Still Your Partner Answers Without
Looking Up

• Minimize Reaction
• Not think very much
• about it

• Personalize Reaction
• Think that your partner does not care, value, or
  respect you enough

• Benign Explanation Think that your partner
  is engrossed in something very interesting or
  important

• Reciprocate Reaction Go about your business,
  but treat your partner that very same way when
  he/she later approaches you

21
Minimize Reaction
22
Benign Explanation Reaction
23
Personalize Reaction
24
Get Even Reaction
25
Perceptions of General Relationship Quality

• Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976)
• Affection (e.g., agreement on displays of love
  and affection)
• Cohesiveness (e.g., experience laughter,
  discussions together)
• Satisfaction (e.g., happy with relationship and
  minimal conflict)

26
Relationship Quality Total Score
27
Relationship Study Conclusions

• In contrast to Stable High SE, Unstable High SE
  was associated with
• Greater endorsement of destructive reactions
• Less endorsement of constructive reactions
• Less overall relationship quality
• Unstable High SE individuals always scored at one
  extreme, and Stable High SE individuals scored at
  the other extreme
• Of all the SE types, diminished psychological
  functioning was reflected in those with Unstable
  High SE
• Relationship functioning was best understood when
  considering the joint effects of peoples SE
  Level AND the relative fragility (instability) or
  security (stability) of their SE.

28
Verbal Defensiveness Study
29
SE Variables Measures

• SE Level Rosenberg SE Scale(RSE) Measures
  feelings about ones self-worth in general
• SE Stability Multiple assessments of a modified
  RSE version Measures current feelings of
  self-worth (how one feels about oneself right
  now)
• Implicit SE Name letter effect degree of liking
  for 1st letter of first and last name relative to
  all other letters
• Contingent SE 15-item scale (CSES Kernis
  Paradise, 2005) tapping overall degree of SE
  contingency
• An important measure of my worth is how
  competently I perform

30
Defense Mechanisms

• Defense Mechanisms reflect motivated
  cognitive-behavioral strategies that protect the
  self from perceived threats by maintaining or
  augmenting SE, or reducing negative affect
  (Feldman Barrett et al., 1996)
• People attempt to reduce perceived threats by
  dealing with them in 2 ways
• By controlling whether the threat enters
  consciousness (Awareness)
• By controlling the specific content of the
  thoughts and feelings that enter consciousness
  (Distortion)

31
Defensive Verbal Behavior Assessment (Feldman
Barrett et al., 2002)

• The DVBA was created to assess individual
  differences in self-protective defensiveness
• Defensiveness is gauged via a Standardized (40-60
  minute) Structured Interview, that involves
  discussing ones previously encountered stressful
  experiences.
• 5 Non-stressful (Filler) Items 15 Mildly to
  Moderately Stressful Items (e.g., Tell me about
  a time when
• You felt that your parents were really
  disappointed in you.
• Youve broken the rules.
• Youve had hateful feelings toward a loved one
• You fantasized about being with someone other
  than your partner at the time you were dating
  them.

32
DVBA Scoring

• Coders independently rated participants interview
  responses by incorporating two aspects of
  defensiveness
• Awareness and Distortion
• Awareness conscious understanding and acceptance
  of ones cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in
  the face of a threat
• Distortion reinterpretation of events through
  rationalization or justification

33
DVBA Scoring (cont.)

• Non-Defensive Response (score 0)
• High Awareness and Low Distortion
• Mildly Defensive Response (score 1)
• Moderate Awareness and Mild Distortion
• Moderately Defensive Response (score 2)
• Limited Awareness and Moderate Distortion
• Highly Defensive Response (score 3)
• High Unawareness and High Distortion

34
Non-Defensive Coded Response DVBA Score 0

• I Tell me about a time when youve broken the
  rules.
• P In third grade, my teacher told us that we had
  to be nice to this guy. He wasnt an exchange
  student, but he came from a place where the
  people dont speak English very well. So she told
  us we were all supposed to be nice to him, and I
  tried to, but he started to get on my nerves very
  bad. So I shoved him, and got into trouble. She
  called me out in front of the whole class.
• I And how did you feel about doing that and
  breaking her rule.
• P I felt horrible, both because I hurt this
  guys feelings and I got called out. I was mean,
  and I didnt like that.

35
Highly-Defensive Coded Response DVBA Score 3

• I Tell me about a time when youve broken the
  rules.
• P The rules (laughs)! What do you mean the
  rules?
• I Whatever you feel applied to you as the
  rules.
• P I guess in high school, I cheated on a couple
  of tests. I guess thats breaking the rules.
• I And how did you feel about cheating on a test
  and breaking the rules?
• P (Laugh) I felt good because I got a higher
  grade (laugh). I didnt feel bad.

36
Non-Defensive Coded Response DVBA Score 0

• I Tell me about a time when youve fantasized
  about being with someone other than your partner
  at the time when you were dating your partner.
• P Um,Im thinking that itd have to be with
  this guy that, um, I had dated, um the summer
  before last, and he had been back up to school,
  um, I met this other guy thatwho I really,
  really liked and, uh, we hadnt seen each other
  for a while so this new guy that I liked with
  mewith each other, so when I was with my old,
  um, with my boyfriend like I thought about this
  other guy a lot more than I thought about him.
• I And how did you feel about that?
• P Um, I mean I did feel guilty about it, but at
  the same time it made me realize that I didnt
  have feelings for my boyfriend anymore, so I did
  need to break up with him.

37
Highly-Defensive Coded Response DVBA Score 3

• I Tell me about a time when you fantasized
  about being with someone other than your partner
  at the time you were dating them.
• P Um, (long pause)I cant think of a time.
  Nope(long pause) I dont know. I cant think of
  a time when I fantasized about somebody else
  because Im with somebody because I want to be
  with them, like they wouldnt want to be with
  anybody else, so I dont really fantasize about
  other people.

38
SE Level X SE Stability Interaction
39
SE Level X Contingent SE Interaction
40
SE Level X Implicit SE Interaction
41
Verbal Defensiveness Study Conclusions

• The findings support the contention that how
  people attend to and process threatening
  information involving themselves is best
  understood when both peoples SE Level AND the
  relative fragility or security of their SE is
  jointly considered.
• In contrast to High SE that was secure in nature
  (stable, true/non-contingent, or congruent),
  individuals with High SE that was fragile
  (unstable, contingent, or incongruent), were
  significantly more defensive when discussing
  their prior stressful/threatening experiences.
• Secure High SE persons were most prone, whereas
  Fragile High SE persons were typically least
  prone to
• (a) openly acknowledge and be aware of SE
  threatening
• information involving oneself
  
• (b) accept such information in a
  non-distorting manner.